Memeorandum

September 26, 2004

Times Reporter Rebuts Times Editorial (So I Don't Have To)

Perhaps I am looking for consistency in all the wrong places - the Times manages to flip-flop from the Saturday editorial page to the Sunday "Week in Review".

On Saturday, the Times denounced as "un-American" the recent tactic of various Bush surrogates who have expressed their opinion that Osama and other terrorists are rooting for John Kerry.

The cryptically-titled "An Un-American Way to Cam" says that:

President Bush and his surrogates are taking their re-election campaign into dangerous territory. Mr. Bush is running as the man best equipped to keep America safe from terrorists - that was to be expected. We did not, however, anticipate that those on the Bush team would dare to argue that a vote for John Kerry would be a vote for Al Qaeda. Yet that is the message they are delivering - with a repetition that makes it clear this is an organized effort to paint the Democratic candidate as a friend to terrorists.

Oh, for heaven's sake. Saying "I think Bush will be tougher on Al Qaeda than Kerry" is not the same as saying "Kerry is a friend to Al Qaeda". The Times cites this Dana Milbank WaPo article, which is similarly unconvincing in its "killer quotes".

This inspires a hint to Kerry in his debate prep - if this comes up, the correct rebuttal is not to whine about un-American attacks on your patriotism (although I appreciate that this reponse is a bit of a reflex by now).

The response is, and try to get some swagger going when you deliver it, "If Osama, Zarqawi, or any other terrorists think they will have an easier time with John Kerry, they are in for a surprise." (And I'm begging you - get the names right. This would be a terrible time to win a "Brandini".)

If you can't stop there, explain that with America and the world united behind you, you will trounce these fools in a way the divisive George Bush never could, and if the terrorists don't understand that, it is because they don't understand our society and they are about to get a valuable lesson in the power of democracy.

Do NOT get abstract, and ruminate that this election is not about what is worse for Al Qaeda, it is about what is better for America. It is certainly arguable that an America with a better health care system, higher taxes on the rich, and a less confrontational approach to militant Islam would, in the long run, be a safer, stronger country. DO NOT make this argument! Presenting your election as a win-win - "We're better off under Kerry-Edwards, and so is Al Qaeda!" - only makes sense if you plan simultaneously to announce your withdrawal from the race.

Now, back to the Times editors - the notion that foreign baddies are not paying attention to the rhetoric emanating from the American candidates is absurd; the notion that they do not have a preference seems improbable. Surely Zarqawi in Falluja would view a Bush defeat as a personal triumph; Osama, on the other hand, may prefer the Bellicose Mr. Bush as an aid to recruitment - that argument has been made (see below), without Reps whining that Bush's patriotism is under assault.

David Sanger presents the rebuttal case to the Times editors in his assessment of our approaches to Iran and North Korea:

Mr. Kerry vowed on Friday that "I will talk directly to the North Koreans to get a verifiable agreement that will eliminate their nuclear weapons program completely and irreversibly.'' A noble goal, one that Bill Clinton attempted in 1994, before settling for a "nuclear freeze'' that the North has now terminated. Perhaps North Korea would take a grand bargain, but its leaders have declared that they cannot negotiate with President Bush. No doubt Mr. Kim, an avid viewer of satellite television, will be tuned to the debates for any hint that Mr. Kerry would give him a better deal.

No doubt. And if, on the Friday following the debate, I write that based on what I heard last night, Mr. Kim should prefer Mr. Kerry, am I un-American?

MORE: I need to add a Richard Clarke link - his comment about Bush seeming to be under the influence of Osama's mind-rays when he decided to invade Iraq is illustrative of the "Osama prefers Bush" theme. And yes, Reps howled, but we did not invoke the daft "patriotism" argument.

More broadly, is there a reason to doubt that a change in government in the US following a terror attack will be promoted as a victory for Al Qaeda? Isn't that what happened after Madrid? I guess we will get another data point after the Oct. 9 Australian election.

Comments

The [shock] and [dismay] of the anti-war Left at being likened to terrorist-sympathizers is just the outward part of their collective denial. There's no question that our enemies want Kerry to win because they can see that he is preoccupied with the opinions of the United Nations, which the al-Qaedists and Kim and the mullahs know is an utter joke. The terrorists in Iraq have also been treated to a preview of Kerry's disgusting disregard for Allawi and the pessimism that has gripped the Dhimmicrats. All they have to do is hold on for a few more weeks in hopes of a Kerry victory ---and then they can exploit his indecisiveness and impulse to retreat ---if they haven't already tried the Spanish option.

Cooler heads may shrink from saying it, but I won't: a vote for John Kerry is a vote for those who hate America.

And if, on the Friday following the debate, I write that based on what I heard last night, Mr. Kim should prefer Mr. Kerry, am I un-American?

No, of course not. However, please consider that Mr. Kim (arguably) preferring Mr. Kerry tells us absolutely nothing about whether we should prefer Mr. Kerry or not. Our goal is not to aggravate Mr. Kim as much as possible - I hope you understand that. The commenter above clearly does not understand it.

You know, as I noted before: Mr. Kim would surely prefer that we found a cure for cancer. It doesn't mean that we should avoid finding that cure by all means. Finding a cure for cancer would not be an act of treason, it won't be done as a gift for those who hate America.

"You know, as I noted before: Mr. Kim would surely prefer that we found a cure for cancer. It doesn't mean that we should avoid finding that cure by all means. Finding a cure for cancer would not be an act of treason, it won't be done as a gift for those who hate America."

You love false dichotomies. So tell us whether you have stopped beating your wife also.

The [shock] and [dismay] of the anti-war Left at being likened to terrorist-sympathizers is just the outward part of their collective denial

My shock and awe at the insistance that the war in Iraq had anything to do with terrorism whatsoever is probably just part of my collective denial of how profound your statement is.

Just because a war happens in the Middle East doesn't mean it's a war on terrorists. There weren't any terrorists in Iraq until we invaded. Well there weren't any terrorists in parts of Iraq that weren't controlled by the Kurds (who were our allies.)

No one is saying that Kerry likes Osama or Zarqawi, it has merely been pointed out that Kerry agrees with them, e.g., the IIG is a puppet regime and America is losing in Iraq. Sorry, but if you lefties don't like it you should go bitch to John Kerry; he's the one that keeps parroting the terrorists' propaganda.

There weren't any terrorists in Iraq until we invaded. Well there weren't any terrorists in parts of Iraq that weren't controlled by the Kurds (who were our allies.)

Both of these statements are wrong.

Saddam hosted Zarqawi long before the invasion, and even gave him free medical care. Abdul Rahman Yasin, the only member of the 1993 WTC attack cell still at large, fled to Iraq and remained there under Saddam's protection.

Saddam also sheltered many members of Black September, and ran a training center at Salman Pak. Then there are the hundreds of reports of contacts between Saddam's regime and al'Qaeda...

I don't know why people keep making the senseless claim that Iraq was somehow a terrorist-free zone while Saddam was in power. It's patently absurd, and making the claim is, IMHO, a sign of someone less interested in reality than in their anti-Bush fantasies.

"2) Wouldn't you rather the terrorists pour into Iraq and fight our Marines and Army, rather than be in a cave somewhere plotting 9/11, Part II?"

For some people, Hell no. Not if there are political points that can be scored. Anybody But Bush, at any cost. Some people will chime in with any position on any subject; as long as it is the opposite of Bush.

Kerry has already struck up an accidental symbiotic relationship with America's enemies.

Looking at his history during the Cold War I think it is safe to say that he never took a stand that the Soviet Union did not like, The Soviets wanted the US out of Indochina and so did Kerry. The Soviets opposed the Reagan military build-up and so did Kerry. The Soviets opposed the contras and so did Kerry. The Soviets supported the Nuclear freeze movement and so did Kerry.

I am sure that Kerry never takes a stand that he believes will hurt America. I am sure that he believes that every position he takes is for the best. But in his heart, he believes that America's actions trigger violence directed at us and that the real solution to threats against us is always internal reform.

We followed Kerry's policy in Indochina and the area descended into a charnel house. Had we followed his policies in the rest of the Cold War chances are good we would still be fighting it. Had we followed his prescription for first Gulf War, Saddam Hussein would now rule a nuclear armed Iraqi-Kuwaiti superstate.

Kerry loves this country but his pessimistic view of it cripples his ability to assess the threats we face. His model of how international relations work is fundamentally broken.

There weren't any terrorists in Iraq until we invaded. Well there weren't any terrorists in parts of Iraq that weren't controlled by the Kurds (who were our allies.)

You get a two-fer, you insult America and our allies.

Ansar al-Islam had an enclave next to Kurdistan on the Iraq-Iranian border. Ansar al-Islam was al Qaeda affiliated, hosted Zarqawi and co-operated with Saddam. Saddam sent folks up there to help al Qaeda develop chemical weapons.

The Left lies, and lies, and lies and is founded on lies. Please grow up lefties and attempt to embrace reality and the truth.

Wow. That's arguably the most intellectually shoddy, indefensible position that I've seen someone take in quite a bit of time.

Let's look at what some Republicans have said. From The Washington Post:

1. • On Tuesday, Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah), chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said terrorists "are going to throw everything they can between now and the election to try and elect Kerry." On Fox News, Hatch said Democrats are "consistently saying things that I think undermine our young men and women who are serving over there."

2. On Saturday, House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (Ill.) said at a GOP fundraiser: "I don't have data or intelligence to tell me one thing or another, [but] I would think they would be more apt to go [for] somebody who would file a lawsuit with the World Court or something rather than respond with troops." Asked whether he believed al Qaeda would be more successful under a Kerry presidency, Hastert said: "That's my opinion, yes."

Translation? Al Qaeda's in bed with John Kerry, and/or neither he nor John Edwards would not protect America. *Far worse than the John Kerry's cheap shot at Bush over the seven minutes ordeal on 9/11, it's an absurdly cheap shot.* It also serves as a good reminder of why these people - who aren't making a mistake, as they have repeated charges like this quite a few times - deserve very little respect, if any at all.

As for Sanger, he is not suggesting that John Kerry is going to bend over for KJI or saying that Kerry will not protect America. He is analyzing a situation, not throwing about verbal darts.

Richard Clarke, from what I remember, has done something similiar: he has analyzed the plight of ourr efforts against terrorism. Has he taken a cheap shot against Bush? Perhaps. But I don't remember any, and from what you said above, it doesn't seem like it.

"More broadly, is there a reason to doubt that a change in government in the US following a terror attack will be promoted as a victory for Al Qaeda?"

If we follow that logic, virtually any change in what we do is seen as a victory for the terrorists.

"Translation? Al Qaeda's in bed with John Kerry, and/or neither he nor John Edwards would not protect America."

Your building a Straw man Brian. What they are saying is Kerry's history indicates his solution would be inept and the enemy knows it. That Kerry and the Democrats are following the same path followed in the Vietnam years, repeating history. It isn’t that Kerry wouldn’t attempt to protect the US, it is a question of is he competent enough to be effective. Perhaps you have forgotten about the train Bombings in Spain.

The liberals hate Bush because of the way he appears to be so absolutist, so sure of himself and because he seems to see things in black and white. It drives them nuts.

Liberals gave up on reason along time ago because Kant told them too. They worship feelings over reason because Hegal told them too. They created a school system that has dumped education for indoctrination because Dewey told them to.

Now, I believe that it was Ayn Rand and co. that refuted Kant on the intellectual level but do you know who blew away Kant et al on the level of Joe lunchbox?

It was Bazooka Joe!

About a year ago a co-worker offered me a piece of Bazooka bubble gum. I hadn't had any in 40 years but took it anyway because I wanted to see if there were still any Bazooka Joe comic strips inside. There were.

When I read it I almost fell off my chair. It started with Joe's friend (I forgot his name) declaring
>"You can't be certain of anything" to which Joe said
>"Are you sure of that?" To which his friend said "Absolutely!"

Wow! I thought. There is an entire philosophy advocated and refuted in just 12 words. Amazing!

No wonder the liberals are full of hatred. Their arguements can't even stand up to Bazooka Joe's.

Obviously there were terrorists in Iraq before the war, chief among them being Saddam and his regime. That's not semantics, either, Jay: Saddam was harboring a lot of honest-to-Allah murderers from all over the region (e.g., Zarqawi, Abu Abbas, Abu Nidal, et al.). He was paying the families of suiciders in Israel. His secret police and intelligence services were busy doing everything from trying to buy yellowcake uranium to plotting bombings in Europe. Are you just confused by Saddam's (presumed) lack of success in bringing his devastation to our own shores?

Get a clue, comrades: if there's more al-Qaedists in Iraq today than there were before we invaded, there may be a reason. It is literally true that our men and women in uniform are fighting these murderers there instead of here. Why is that so hard to understand? The oxidation of Islamofascist violence is being drawn to the anode of Iraq. And we're there to repair it.

At last a somewhat honest statement from an anti-Bush writer on the link between terrorism and Iraq! Yes, there were terrorists there before the invasion (notably Zarqawi's group) and saying that they were in "the part controlled by the Kurds" (which is a fiction; the Kurds were anti-Saddam but had no autonomy- his control was less firm there, not nonexistent) does not absolve Saddam of being linked to or involved with them (that's almost certainly not the only place they were, unless the Kurds controlled Baghdad). Or is Jay telling us that the Kurds were the ones linked to Islamic terrorists? I don't think that's what we meant. The simple fact is that Iraq, like many Mideast governments (yes, including some friendly to us) have long had links to and encouraged terrorists in order to protect themselves against the danger of domestic revolution. Iraq (a) had strong links to terrorists, (b) has long been unfriendly to the United States, making it a fertile refuge and training ground for terrorists (note Zarqawi's camps), and (c) had the potential to create weapons of mass destruction. That made it far more dangerous to us than many other states. It is a front in the war on terror- or do you folks honestly believe that there are terrorists EXCLUSIVELY in Afghanistan?

Maybe I should stick to writing (too-cryptic) fortune cookies. I thought when I said this in my post, I was making exactly that point:

Do NOT get abstract, and ruminate that this election is not about what is worse for Al Qaeda, it is about what is better for America. It is certainly arguable that an America with a better health care system, higher taxes on the rich, and a less confrontational approach to militant Islam would, in the long run, be a safer, stronger country.

Too cryptic, I guess - my point was that, even if Kerry believes that, it is a bit to subtle a point to promote to a debate audience. He should stick with a simpler, "I'll be as tough as Teresa when I ask her for a new bicycle..." UHH, Re-write!

And Brian continues to amuse us with his conviction that, if words would simply mean what he wanted them too, he would win all arguments. He wrote:

...Asked whether he believed al Qaeda would be more successful under a Kerry presidency, Hastert said: "That's my opinion, yes."

Translation? Al Qaeda's in bed with John Kerry, and/or neither he nor John Edwards would not protect America.

Try your translator on this:

Based on their history over the last few years, Schilling is more likely than Martinez to be effective against the Yankees."

Does that translate to "Pedro can't get anyone out?"

You have a great argument, Brian, as long as you focus on what you pretended people said, and ignore their actual words.

"Where is the firm, solid, clear evidence of the links between the Iraqi government and Ansar al-Islam?"

At this point there is evidence, athough not unclassified "firm, solid, clear" in a trial court sense. Everything in the Senate Intelligence Report about Ansar al-Islam is blacked out but we do have this (Pg. 367):

Nevertheless, the CIA judged that, given the various reports which indicated Iraqi intelligence operatives were active in the northeast as well as the rest of the country, “it would be difficult for Al-Qaida to maintain an active, long term presence in Iraq without alerting the authorities of obtaining their acquiescence”.

And from Human Rights Watch we have evidence of an Al-Qaida and Ansar al-Islam working relationship.

“PUK officials have repeatedly accused Ansar al-Islam of having links with Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda network, and that its members included Arabs of various nationalities who had received military training in Afghanistan. The PUK also said some fifty-seven "Arab Afghan" fighters had entered Iraqi Kurdistan via Iran in mid-September 2001. While Human Rights Watch did not investigate these alleged links, the testimonies of villagers who had fled Biyara and Tawela and were interviewed in September 2002 appeared to support this contention. A number of them, including former detainees, said that there were foreigners among Ansar al-Islam forces, that on occasion they were interrogated by non-Iraqis speaking various Arabic dialects, and that they had heard other languages spoken that they did not recognize.”

There are also other indications of possible Ansar al-Islam connections with al-Qaeda operatives in Afghanistan. Documents discovered in an al-Qaeda guest house in Afghanistan by the New York Times discuss the creation of an "Iraqi Kurdistan Islamic Brigade" just weeks prior to the formation of Ansar al-Islam in December 2001, and some Ansar al-Islam members in PUK custody have described in credible detail training in al-Qa'ida camps in Afghanistan.

“Among other known Ansar leaders, Mohamed says Abu Wa'el was the most influential, was on the Iraqi intelligence payroll, and served as a liaison between Baghdad and Al Qaeda. Mohamed says his own mission to northern Iraq – during which he was detained by the PUK – is proof of that link. "After America attacked Afghanistan, Baghdad lost contact with [Abu Wa'el]," Mohamed says. "They sent me to check out Abu Wa'el, to make sure he was not dead or captured, and to reestablish contact."

Commander Qada also claims that Ansar al-Islam has ties to agents of Saddam Hussein operating in northern Iraq. "We have picked up conversations on our radios between Iraqis and [Ansar] al-Islam," he says from his military base in Halabja. "I believe that Iraq is also funding [Ansar] al-Islam. There are no hard facts as yet, but I believe that under the table they are supporting them because it will cause further instability for the Kurds."

Let me put it this way: there were much fewer terrorists in Iraq than in the US.

Plenty of people who cut plenty of heads and stabbed babies with bayonets in Central America in the 1980s live in the US under protection of the federal government. Many of them were trained to do these things in the School of the Americas and new generations of terrorists are still being trained there.

And the 9/11 terrorists didn't learn to fly planes in Iraq - they did in the US.

So, quit this hypocrisy, fellas, will ya?

And if you're looking for culprits in the ME, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan would be the top candidates, obviously - you do know that, don't you? So, again, why don't you quit your demagoguery, fellas? It's nauseating to read.

For you folks - something outside your freeper.com (or whatever it is you get your ideas from) - to expand your perspective Bush or Kerry: Who's Really Osama's Boy? by Michael Kinsley. He is a witty guy.

"Let me put it this way: there were much fewer terrorists in Iraq than in the US. [. . .] And if you're looking for culprits in the ME, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan would be the top candidates . . ."

I guess the point of that brilliant bit of analysis was that we should attack Saudi Arabia or Pakistan. By similar logic, in WWII, when most of the Wermacht was battling in the Soviet Union, we should have bombed Moscow rather than Berlin. The reason to focus on government support of terror vice individuals should be obvious (e.g., safe haven, national weapons arsenals)--as is the downside of lashing out at governments who are already engaged on our side in the war on terror.

And there's really no need for a new study on who sponsors terror--we've been tracking them for decades. A congressional terrorism <report">http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/crs/nreastgrps091001.pdf">report completed on 9/10 listed Near/Mideast state terror sponsors as: Iraq, Iran, Syria, Sudan, and Libya. (A report recommended Afghanistan be added--there was no doubt they were sponsoring terror--but it was left off to avoid recognizing the Taliban.) Iraq's key geographic position and flagrant terror sponsorship made it the obvious focus of effort . . . leaving a powerful US force on the borders of the only two sponsors left: Syria and Iran. And the competing grand strategy would be?? ( . . . crickets chirping.)

Sorry, left out a quotation mark and broke that first link. Here it is again:
A congressional terrorism report completed on 9/10 listed Near/Mideast state terror sponsors as: Iraq, Iran, Syria, Sudan, and Libya.

"And from Human Rights Watch we have evidence of an Al-Qaida and Ansar al-Islam working relationship."

Tell me, was Hussein's government the same thing as Ansar al-Islam? No, it isn't. And while it was supportive of Saddam's government, there isn't any evidence that there was a direct, significant link between Saddam and Al Qaeda.

Now you are trying to draw a huge distinction between Saddam and the Iraqi government?

The administration's claims that Saddam and al Qaeda were in bed together have never been credible. It says something that a lot of people, including those in the press, won't get them for this tall tale.